The first Trump/Clinton debate had Super Bowl-like ratings, but unlike some Super Bowls, this debate truly lived up to the pre-game hype.  The post-debate, no-spin analysis in my mind is simply a laundry list of painfully obvious punches landed and missed opportunities.  I pretty much go along with the pre-debate conventional wisdom in terms of lower expectations for Trump being a non-politician and this being his first one-on-one debate…FAR different than the primary debates, where there was often eight people on the stage.  I think Trump may have skated on one comment that could be perceived, I suppose, as non-PC…that being the one in the cyber security discussion alluding to a potential hacker being a 400 pound person laying in bed.  He may have lost the 400-pounder vote on that little faux pas.  Oh well…live & learn.  I immediately thought he was referring to Rosie O’Donnell…but admittedly, that would be pure speculation on my part.

This debate was chock-full of screaming dichotomies.  In the first 30 minutes or so, Hillary looked as though she was reading off a teleprompter.  You could just see those corrupt little wheels turning in her head as she regurgitated all of her canned and memorized responses to various policy questions…as we’d all expect from a career politician.  Each and every utterance no doubt carefully crafted after exhaustive polling and focus groups.  In direct contrast, Trump spoke seemingly off-the-cuff and from the heart in articulating his points.  This, of course, works both for him and against him at various times.  This observation is certainly no revelation, but was fascinating nonetheless to witness that stark difference between the two candidates as they stood on the same stage together for the first time.

It was in that first 30 minutes or so that Trump absolutely annihilated her on the substance of issues such as jobs, taxes, trade, debt, over-regulation, foreign policy failures, and law & order. She looked dazed as she struggled to recite her scripted answers representing business as usual, while Trump landed a flurry of direct hits.  On full display was the dichotomy of change vs the status quo.  However, Trump soon began to get tangled in Hillary’s web of personal attacks that polling shows nobody really cares about anyway other than Hillary’s own choir…most notably the mainstream media.  Tax returns, birtherism, past comments about women, etc…and he took the bait like a starving fish. Rookie mistake.  A “real” politician would have responded with non-answers to these attacks, and then pivoted elsewhere.  But for some reason, Trump feels like he HAS to respond at length to anything that he deems a personal attack…surely one of those, albeit few, instances where being a non-politician hurts him.

The last hour of this debate was clearly a two-on-one affair.  Lester Holt’s “moderating” was so unbalanced, I’m surprised he didn’t topple off his chair.  This was likely due to the way his NBC colleague Matt Lauer got blasted as moderator of the Trump/Clinton Town Hall, where he was perceived by the Left as having been too easy on Trump and hard on Hillary.  After Holt’s performance, though, let’s call it even.  Holt asked no questions about e-mails, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, her “deplorables” comment, Obamacare, etc.  Talk about low hanging fruit…Lester must be a veggie guy.  Howard Kurtz, the host of MediaBuzz on Fox News states, “In the last hour, there is simply no question that Holt repeatedly asked more fact checking and follow-up questions of Donald Trump and did not do the same for Hillary Clinton. In fact I have some research here, Holt interrupted Trump 41 times and only 7 times for Clinton. On the question of ‘fact checking’ questions, there was this great debate in the media should the moderator do that, did that 5 times to Donald Trump, for Hillary Clinton it was zero.”   Unlike Hillary, the numbers don’t lie.  And the fact that the Left universally praised Holt confirms what appears to be clear bias.  To quote Steven Tyler, “Back in the Saddle Again,” as far as the liberal media is concerned.

However, Holt’s abysmal performance does not excuse Trump for consistently failing to feast on his own low hanging fruit.  I mean, like dragging on the ground.  During the cyber security discussion, he made one reference to her emails.  Are you kidding me?  He could have gone for the kill right there, but didn’t.  Then in defending her “stamina,” Hillary referenced her 11-hour testimony before Congress in the Benghazi hearings.  What was Donald waiting for, an engraved invitation?  He could have crammed Benghazi down her throat, but for once in his life, was silent.  Absolutely unbelievable.  To describe these as missed opportunities would be the understatement of the century.

Bottom line is that neither candidate likely did anything to move the needle much one way or another…although the next round of polls will tell that tale.  The pundits generally gave the night to Hillary, but most of the online polls went to Trump.  I tend to agree most with Charles Krauthammer, who stated, “It was not exactly the knock out fight that we thought. It was a spirited fight. I think in the end it was something like a draw. But I do believe that the draw goes to the challenger in the sense that Trump did not go over the line. And the very fact he could go 90 minutes on the same stage automatically elevates the challenger, that’s just automatic for any debate of that sort.”   A couple of tweaks…not taking the bait on personal attacks and not squandering opportunities…should do the trick.  Now that Trump has “been there, done that,” coupled with some sage coaching from his very capable inner circle, I fully expect Trump to step up his game for Trump/Clinton II.